4 ms·

> someone has a comfortable, secure life with food and shelter That's the thing, they don't. If they did I'd agree with you that the problem isn't very bad. Yo

> someone has a comfortable, secure life with food and shelter That's the thing, they don't. If they did I'd agree with you that the problem isn't very bad. You just don't see it around you. If you don't believe me search the FRED database for rent inflation and median wages, for example. Human brain is desperate for explanations. Populism is getting a lot of votes at the moment - people will prefer something that at least attempts to explain their pain over something that denies that the pain exists. "Drain the swamp" by Donal Trump and "Tax the rich" by Democratic hopefuls like Elizabeth Warren.

roenxi 7y ago
But you have identified a root cause that wouldn't cause the problems you are observing. If I changed things (eg, for sake of argument, a highly effective welfare program combined with non-transfer-payment spending cuts and a tax cut to the wealthy) inequality could increase and the problem could go away at the same time. So the root cause is somewhere in the direction of 'people can't comfortable, secure and resourced'. That isn't related to inequality - people can be safe, comfortable, resourced and unequal. Root cause has a specific meaning; I'm basically saying I've done root cause analysis professionally and you havn't actually picked a root cause. You've picked something closer to a guess at a solution.
- H8crilA 7y ago
  Inequality is the problem because everything happens in a single market. Rich people push the real estate market high and suddenly no affordable housing exists. I actually think that the FED is largely responsible for this setup. Unintended consequences of QE and cheap money - everything is now expensive. Same as the seeds for 2008 were laid out in the post-dotcom ultralow interest rates.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    Congress is responsible, because the reason the Fed had to push so heavily on blunt monetary policy levers is because Congress has been asleep at the switch on more targetable fiscal policy remedies to economic problems. Monetary policy alone is useful for smoothing some of the edges of business cycles, but it's not—and not intended to be—the alpha and omega of economic policy.
    - H8crilA 7y ago
      Concurrence has been reached, sir. I am (mostly because I like interesting things) hoping to see the most stupid form of fiscal stimulus in the next deflationary recession - money handouts. It'd be interesting to see what happens if instead of buying $300B worth of bonds the FED with the help of the Treasury just airdrops $1000 into each citizen's bank account. Perhaps start with $100 and see how it goes. Anyhow, not sure if with this polarity the authorities could reach consensus on such drastic measures.

roenxi 7y ago

But you have identified a root cause that wouldn't cause the problems you are observing. If I changed things (eg, for sake of argument, a highly effective welfare program combined with non-transfer-payment spending cuts and a tax cut to the wealthy) inequality could increase and the problem could go away at the same time. So the root cause is somewhere in the direction of 'people can't comfortable, secure and resourced'. That isn't related to inequality - people can be safe, comfortable, resourced and unequal. Root cause has a specific meaning; I'm basically saying I've done root cause analysis professionally and you havn't actually picked a root cause. You've picked something closer to a guess at a solution.

H8crilA 7y ago
Inequality is the problem because everything happens in a single market. Rich people push the real estate market high and suddenly no affordable housing exists. I actually think that the FED is largely responsible for this setup. Unintended consequences of QE and cheap money - everything is now expensive. Same as the seeds for 2008 were laid out in the post-dotcom ultralow interest rates.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Congress is responsible, because the reason the Fed had to push so heavily on blunt monetary policy levers is because Congress has been asleep at the switch on more targetable fiscal policy remedies to economic problems. Monetary policy alone is useful for smoothing some of the edges of business cycles, but it's not—and not intended to be—the alpha and omega of economic policy.
  - H8crilA 7y ago
    Concurrence has been reached, sir. I am (mostly because I like interesting things) hoping to see the most stupid form of fiscal stimulus in the next deflationary recession - money handouts. It'd be interesting to see what happens if instead of buying $300B worth of bonds the FED with the help of the Treasury just airdrops $1000 into each citizen's bank account. Perhaps start with $100 and see how it goes. Anyhow, not sure if with this polarity the authorities could reach consensus on such drastic measures.